Literature Review
In Steven P. Lab’s (2013) book Criminal Justice: The Essentials, in chapter two, Lab discusses the importance of the terms mental capacity and M’Naghten’s rule; as well as specialized courts. Mental capacity as defined in the book is a defense to criminal liability in which offenders’ mental states can reduce or absolve them of liability. (Labs, 2013, p. 36) In other words the offender must have sufficient knowledge that he/she is committing a crime and can distinguish right from wrong. The term used to describe the absence of mental capacity is insanity. In order to have a basis for insanity in court, the book goes on to explain the establishment of the M’Naghten Rule, the first legal definition of insanity.
In 1843, an
…show more content…
Mental illnesses do not receive the proper attention they deserve because of the stigma surrounding them. A stigma is when someone views another in a negative way because of a distinguishing characteristic or personal trait that is perceived as disadvantageous. Stigma leads to discrimination, or assumption that an individual is dangerous or unstable. The effects of the surrounding stigma lead to: reluctance of an individual to seek help, lack of understanding by others, fewer opportunities for work, physical violence or harassment, and inadequate coverage in health insurance policies (Mayo Clinic, …show more content…
The M’Naghten rule, as discussed in the literature review at the beginning of the paper is the first definition of insanity (Lab, 2013). Nevertheless, this rule is very old, and some feel as if modifications need to be made in order to compensate for the scientific discoveries that have been made in recent years (Bennett, 2009). The M’Naghten Rule is very strict and does not include issues involving self-control. To compensate for the lack of inclusion in the M’Naghten Rule the substantial capacity test was proposed in 1962, and stated that an individual is not responsible for criminal conduct if, due to a mental disease or defect, a person lacks substantial capacity to understand the wrongfulness of the conduct or to conform the conduct to the obligations of the law. This provided leeway for those who could distinguish right from wrong, but fail to control their actions because of a mental disorder (Labs, 2013, p.
The M’Naghten rule required anyone who plead insanity to undergo a test of insanity, or the right-wrong test, where they had to prove at the time of the crime that they did not know what they were doing was wrong. Using this test the jury had to figure out two questions. One, did the defendant know at the time of the crime what the were doing was wrong, or two, did the defendant understand what he was doing was wrong (Kollins). The M’Naghten rule was a huge step in helping with the insanity plea. Furthermore it helped ease the use of it because people had to begin to prove themselves more to the court. Having to prove themselves to the court makes it more difficult to allow them to get out of the crime they committed. In the years following many rules have been created. One of the most recently made is the Federal Rule. Ronald Reagan was a big part in having this law passed. This law states that the defendant is required to prove, “by clear and convincing evidence” that "at the time of the commission of the acts constituting the offense, the defendant, as a result of a severe mental disease or defect, was unable to appreciate the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of his acts
Insanity. Criminal responsibility or not guilty by reason of insanity can be evaluated through the MMPI-2. The validity scales that show if an individual is responsible by responding; knows the difference between right and wrong; or determines if the individual cannot respond to an incident the individual is accused (Walters, 2011). Bobby was aware of what he was doing, knows right and wrong; but Bobby still suffered from a mental illness. The ...
For those that don’t know, the insanity plea, as defined by Cornell Law, is based on the fact that a person accused of a crime can acknowledge that he/she committed the crime, but argue that he/she is not responsible for it because of his or her mental illness, by pleading “not guilty by reason of insanity”. This first became a problem in 1843. Daniel M’Naughten was trialed for shooting the secretary of the Prime Minister in attempt to assassinate the Prime Minister himself. It was said that M’Naughten thought the Prime Minister was the person behind all his personal and financial problems. The jury ruled him “not guilty by reason of insanity”. The reason for the verdict was M’Naughten...
Throughout her presentation, she explains how public stigmas, once again, cause label avoidance pushing many who need help away from treatment. She then goes on to explain how these stereotyped behaviors cause discrimination towards people with a mental illness from employment to housing which only leads to the creation of more stigmas. Finally, she states how the impact of stigmas is associated with the reduction of self-esteem, overall poor health, and problems with interpersonal relationships (Willits). By using this presentation I am able to connect what we have learned about mental health stigmas to my article. First off, for example, Morris explains how psychiatric units invoke people to imagine a frightening place where insane patients are strapped down and poked and prodded for care (Morris). This stereotypical idea relates to how Willits described general stereotypes associated with mental illness such as crazy and dangerous (Willits). On top of that, Willits explained how these stigmas have negative consequences for patients (Willits). This relates to Morris’s explanation on how the stigma around institutions has caused these units to shut down forcing many people to be homeless or live in jail
The M’Naghten rule “involves a strictly binary decision: either the defendant cognitive capacity is totally impaired or it is not, and does not recognize that sanity may be a matter of degree” (Chambliss, 2011, Pg. 135). A person who can distinguish right and wrong, yet unable to control his or her behavior, is unlikely to be found insane under Mcnaghten. The M'Naghten rule became the standard for insanity in the United States and the United Kingdom, and is still the standard for insanity in almost half of the states.
Much of my skepticism over the insanity defense is how this act of crime has been shifted from a medical condition to coming under legal governance. The word "insane" is now a legal term. A nuerological illness described by doctors and psychiatrists to a jury may explain a person's reason and behavior. It however seldom excuses it. The most widely known rule in...
The way in which liability is determined seems to be an irony in itself. The civil law requires people to act with reasonable care, meaning not hurting others or damaging property. Also it requires the defendant to do what a reasonable person would have done. (Cannell) However, my question is, if a person is not using a reasonable mind then isn’t that person insane or otherwise mentally handicapped?
When someone commits a crime, he or she may use mental illness as a defense. This is called an insanity plea or insanity defense. What the insanity defense does is try to give the alleged perpetrator a fair trial. At least in extreme cases, society agrees with this principle. The problem is where do we draw the line. Under what circumstances is a person considered insane, and when are they not? The trouble with the insanity defense in recent years is the assumption that virtually all criminals have some sort of mental problem. One important point is that the crime itself, no matter how appalling, does not demonstrate insanity. Today, the insanity defense has become a major issue within the legal system. If the defendant is clearly out of touch with reality, the police and district attorney ordinarily agree to bypass the trial and let the defendant enter a mental hospital.
Insanity is a legal, not a medical definition. This makes mental illness and insanity correlate with each other, only some mental illnesses are consider as inanity. Insanity includes not only the mental, illness but also mental deficiencies. There are major problems in exactly how to apply a medical theory to legal matters. Every crime involves a physical and mental act and the non-physical cause of behavior. The mens rea is the mental element that would be required for a crime, if it is absent it excuses the criminal from criminal responsibility...
Insanity (legal sense): A person can be declared insane if they are conscious while committing the crime, committing the criminal act voluntarily, and had no intent to inflict harm. A person declared insane lacks rational intent due to a deficit or disorder, which inhibits their rational thinking
The two different types of stigma have different effects on the attitude towards those with mental health issues. The public stigma can lead to discrimination and prejudice. The prejudice and discrimination that result from the public stigma can prevent those diag...
In the article Issues and Controversies says, "Throughout most of human history, people with mental illness were ostracized, isolated, and persecuted." ( Infobase,1) This belief system can give causation of mental illness in different cultures and such influences in a community will always be in a negative manner. Various societies struggle with the notion of mental health. The standards of every culture believe to be considered normal, natural, or healthy. These views lead to disagreements about the causes, diagnosis, and the treatment of the disorders. Many people with mental problems are discriminated against because of their mental disorder. Mental illness and stigma refers to the view of the person with mental illness as having undesirable traits. Stigma leads to negative behavior, stereotyping, and discriminatory behavior towards the person with mental health issues. This stigma causes the affected person to experience denial or shame of their condition. Perceived stigma can result in the patient being scared to seek help. Stigma can be divided into two perspectives, public and self stigma. Upadhyay says, "Public stigma occurs when the general
People with a mental illness are often feared and rejected by society. This occurs because of the stigma of mental illness. The stigma of mental illness causes the perception of individuals with mental illnesses to be viewed as being dangerous and insane. They are viewed and treated in a negative way. They are almost seen as being less of a human. The stigma affects the individual with a mental illness in such a cruel way. The individual cannot even seek help without the fear of being stigmatized by their loved ones or the general public. The stigma even leads to some individuals developing self-stigma. This means having a negative perception of one’s self, such as viewing one’s self as being dangerous. The worst part is that the effects of
Insanity, automatism and diminished responsibility all play a significant role in cases where the defendant’s mind is abnormal while committing a crime. The definition of abnormal will be reviewed in relationship to each defence. In order to identify how these three defences compare and contrast, it is first important to understand their definition and application. The appropriate defence will be used once the facts of the cases have been distinguished and they meet the legal tests. The legal test of insanity is set out in M’Naghten’s Case: “to establish a defence…of insanity it must be clearly proved that, at the time of committing the act, the party accused was labouring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing, or if he did know it, that he did not know he was doing what was wrong.” To be specific, the defect of reason arises when the defendant is incapable of exercising normal reasoning. The defect of reason requires instability in reasoning rather than a failure to exercise it at a time when exercise of reason is possible. In the case of R v Clarke, the defendant was clinically depressed and in a moment of absent-mindedness, stole items from a supermarket...
There are two theories that justify punishment: retributivism according to which punishment ensures that justice is done, and utilitarianism which justifies punishment because it prevents further harm being done. The essence of defences is that those who do not freely choose to commit an offence should not be punished, especially in those cases where the defendant's actions are involuntary. All three of these defences concern mental abnormalities. Diminished responsibility is a partial statutory defence and a partial excuse. Insanity and automatism are excuses and defences of failure of proof. While automatism and diminished responsibility can only be raised by the defendant, insanity can be raised by the defence or the prosecution. It can be raised by the prosecution when the defendant pleads diminished responsibility or automatism. The defendant may also appeal against the insanity verdict. With insanity and diminished responsibility, the burden of proof is on the defendant. With automatism the burden of proof is on the prosecution and they must negate an automatism claim beyond reasonable doubt.